This post has been attracting a lot of comments, so I thought I'd bring it back up top for convenience's sake. --Hunter B.
Ross Douthat, newly returned from filling in for Andrew Sullivan, points to an essay on the ol' question of why those red-staters are voting red. (follow the links)
Now, I think the question is a bit hackneyed, not least because the fact that some state tends conservative or liberal is a long way from being able to say anything about the effects of social conditions on voting behavior. Having 55% of a state's voters (not citizens, mind you) who vote conservative or liberal and then making snarky comments (a la the NYT's Frank Rich) about how funny it is that those states have higher divorce rates, watch Desperate Housewives, etc. doesn't get you very far.
In any case, it seems to me that the whole question is based on a misunderstanding, namely, that politics is primarily about economics and only then about "cultural" issues. That's just nonsense, mostly dreamed up by people who *want* politics to be all about economics. Politics is, rather, primarily about culture, it is a vehicle for people to decide "who" they are. Economic decisions, the allocation of resources or opportunities, is a part of that "who-ness", but it does not contain it. Economics does, of course, shape culture, but I think it's a mistake to think it's primary.
51 comments:
I could almost take offsense to this, you're implying that those on the wrong side of this culture war could be criminals. You guys are truly intent on taking 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' as far as possible aren't you... Religion... no, we mean culture.
As thomas frank points out though, cultural issues are very rarely, almost never, legislated upon (could you seriously make the case that the tax cut was more cultural than economics?), so if politics is about cultural issues, nobody's told the politicians.
You really should define culture. I could repeat a lot of what's the matter with kansas...
Thomas Frank is out to lunch. Read James Nuechterlein's response to Frank in First Things. Nails it dead on. You can get it free at the FT website.
So, man doesn't live by bread alone after all. Welcome to reality, reality-based community. Better late than never.
The original American Prospect article is actually a repudiation of Thomas Frank with his class warfare crap--he's so 2004, so Bob Shrum, if not 1932 and FDR.
Recommended reading for all---the polling it recounts already appears to be highly influential: the new poster boy for the "new" progressive movement is the very religious Tim Kaine, newly-elected Democrat governor of red-state Virginia.
Kaine has just been selected to give the Demo response to Bush's upcoming State of the Union address.
Coincidence? I think not...
Study after study confirms that the number one correlationary factor in how you vote is... how your parents vote. Children of Democrats tend to vote Democrat; children of Republicans tend to vote Republican.
Actually, Friend Connie, we're introducing you to your new lefty talking points, the new and improved neo-progressive agenda, which is why the article was recommended for all.
American Prospect is perhaps America's foremost lefty magazine, replacing the Nation, which is wack, and The New Republic, which is growing dangerously centrist.
The Reform Club keeps you, the gentle reader of any and all political persuasions, on the cutting edge. Class envy is out: the system works for the vast majority (at least of voters), where more people make $100K+ a year than make under $15K.
Bob Shrum's (and John Edwards' "Two Americas") class warfare is an electoral loser, since 55% of the (Bush-Kerry) electorate makes over $50K a year, the point where most people consider themselves comfortable.
After that, they think of societal cohesion, morality, ethos, and values, which in classical philosophy are called "virtue".
Hard work, self-sufficiency and personal responsibility are part of America's (and Calvinism's, and classical philosophy's) ethos, or character. A political party that ignores its nation's ethos consigns itself to irrelevance.
Except for modern (and failed) experiments like Marx's, which claim universal political truths, governments must suit the ethos of a people, not the other way around.
Hillary, the progressives, and the Democratic Party seem to be getting the message, albeit only through more sophisticated polling. They could have saved a lot of dough by just picking up some Montesquieu. (Pretenders like Thomas Frank lie dead, and unlamented.)
All of these, quite good, articles didn't seem to get the point of Frank's book at all. First off, Kansas is the extreme case and the supposed leading indicator, the populist reforms which were started here, and their undoing have done the most good, and the most harm here. Everything he says in the book is thus meant to foretell the future possible domestic trends in America (the backlash spreading), since Kansas historically leads the nation (slavery, even abortion). And secondly, If the democrats are the ones lacking the self-image, the Republicans aren't much better off underneath their proud conservative selves. There are the two Republican America's, the mods and the cons (the backlash America), this difference is striking in Kansas, but quite unnoticeable nationally, atleast to me, except maybe McCain.
If people earning <$50,000 did vote for Kerry by a pretty slim margin (<5%) all over America, they voted in Kansas for Bush by a 30% margin in Kansas' poorest district. Imagine that nationally! Something the Nuecterlein article refuses to accept. On pg176 and at the end Frank mentions everything the Nuechterlein article does to fault the Democrats. The republicans can only try to teach the Democrats because it's the Republicans who have gotten lucky in having the cons land on their side of the fence. If it wasn't for the straw man of liberal intellectualism and the unwinnable culture war--the backlash, there'd be no republican victories:
pg136-pg137:"...for the aggrieved "Middle Americans," the experience has been a bummer all around. All they have to show for their Republican loyalty are lower wages, more dangerous jobs, dirtier air, a new overlord class [the liberal elite] that comports itself like a King--and, of course, a crap culture whose moral free fall continues without significant interference from the Christers whom they send triumphantly back to Washington every couple of years. By all rights the charm of Republicanism should have worn off for this part of the conservative coalition long ago. After all, how can you lament the shabby state of American life while absolving business of responsibility for it? How can you complain so bitterly about culture and yet neglect to mention the main factor making culture what it is? How can you reconcile the two clashing halves of the conservative mind?
By believing in bias, that's how. Alone among the many, many businesses of the world, the backlash thinkers insist, the culture industry does not respond to market forces. It does the ugly things that it does because it is honeycombed with robotic, alien liberals, trying to drip their corrosive liberlism into our ears. Liberal bias exists because it must exist in order for the rest of contemporary conservatism to be true. ... Bias has to be; therefore it is."
Even when the poor get poorer and the middle class union workers in Wichita become less and less well off, they vote Republican because of the backlash.
It is the backlash which provides the populist votes for an unpopulist agenda. It's Kansas which is the leading indicator here. And I'm sure the backlash plays a big role in most southern states. It's not just the population on the fringes, and it makes a difference as 'middle-class caring about culture votes republican'
You guys are all optimists and point the the evidence of there being no more social classes, but that's merely an illusion because of the backlash. You should hear limbaugh on a regular basis... nobody that's reading this won't, and for good reason, the guy is wrong beyond comprehension.
Most intellectuals in other countries worry about their kids being carried away too much by western culture, I'm for one glad western culture is being confronted, even if rhetorically. When the ones put in power to do so give us worse drinking water, I can be realistic about them 'confronting' culture.
I hope that was coherent... And I blame it on Reagan, I ran across some popular culture comedy of the 80's and it made fun of Reagan the same as the current Bush, unintelligent. It all adds up, 'don't think too much, free market saves all'.
As for the backlash, which in my midwest living experience is very true, it is a feedback loop, where the feedback is the deteriorating culture blamed on the liberal elites. There is only more and more of it, this is why liberal is bad word now. You can find out for yourself by coming to Kansas or Missouri. I've had the privelage of arguing with several people who believe this... regularly! The rest of the world is liberal... it's because they all have liberal media outlets, they would NEVER be otherwise! no more thought is needed. When O'Reilly says 'The liberal CBC shouldn't be funded by the canadian government', It's Proof! There is no seperation of powers doctrine in the republican house, senate, executive, it's the liberal media! The free market doesn't provide stability (i.e. Irrational Exuberance), It's liberal! Neo-Conservative agenda, liberal speak! NO more thinking is required. The kids are voting like their parents, overwhelmingly. It's quite amazing, shocking and true, to say the least. These are students at UMR, the school should nationally be known for it's American Solar Challenge winning Solar Car team.
As a person who lives in Cupcake Land (the description is correct, and there isn't nearly enough poverty here for a Democrat to win an election), as affectionately put by Frank and another author, and as someone who went to the same school Frank did, If only somebody gave me a penny for arguing about much stricter gun control at times, I'd be filthy rich... guess what, I was almost convinced into believeing current gun control is good enough, even when the US does no better in crime rates compared to the rest of the world. This place has infact at times pulled me to the right on everything, healthcare, guns, you name it, and if it wasn't for my reading habit (Irrational Exuberance currently), I'd be a basket case. You can only ignore so many self-filling prophecies, before accepting some. I've typed way too much.
The poor in Kansas vote overwhelmingly republican because of the backlash. While this may not be true nationally, it could be. The 'culture' will inevitably continue to worsen, as defined by the backlash. This is a grassroots movement, and the 'liberals' are the enemy, again, as defined by the backlash.
My experiences with living in Kansas agree with Frank.
Devang, I admire the effort you've put into these posts.
Something else you should consider in addition to culture backlash is the notion that many Americans regardless of income level consider wealth redistribution to be akin to theft.
It might benefit them, but darn it, they want no part of it.
The Kansas view is based almost completely on a materialistic world view; ie, I will vote my pocketbook, period.
It ain't that simple ...
The Kansans are also voting against unions, and for corporate welfare. Both are not theft, and makes their economic situation worse. Add that to the rest of the republican platform, poorer environment, poorer social services, it becomes obvious to me, that something like the backlash and unwinnable cultural issues are needed for the Kansans to vote the way they do.
If you frame the question asking people about social programs, they overwhelmingly say yes.
It's easier for a corporation to come out of bankruptcy than it is for a human now... corporate welfare.
Devang, I don't like corporate welfare , either. No good conservative does. As a percentage of the budget, however, corporate welfare is a very small piece of the pie. The non-discretionary chunk of the budget, by far the biggest slice, goes to social programs regardless of who the president is.
The welfare reform of the late 90's helped considerably, but without social security being likewise improved, we'll still have a very entitlement heavy government.
It's really quite shocking how rapidly this state of affairs developed. As of 1960, we spent just a small portion on social programs as a nation with the lion share going to defense. Since the late 80's, the inverse has been true.
And say what you want about the military-industrial complex, but defense is just about the only thing we've successfully trimmed as a budget item through the years.
Connie, social security hasn't been self-supporting ever. It has always been one group paying for the retirement of another group. It had a surplus for a long time because the baby boomers were paying for a numerically smaller generation. The Gen-Xers are going to have a terrible time paying for the boomers because we were also numerically small.
Self-supporting would be if I pay in and get back what I put in with interest. When you take from one person to pay another, that is an entitlement.
Just as a general statement not directed toward anyone in particular:
The basic purpose of government is the mutual defense of its citizens.
I don't think anyone bowed their heads to the masters of law and order to get a prescription drug benefit.
Again, not talking to anyone in particular, but I think I have met the most confused anarchist in the history of mankind.
This is, of course, the classic liberal view on redistribution.
Wow. That is, I believe, called "putting words in others' mouths." It's also known as "making it up as you go."
You can go to Beliefnet.com, or pick up the latest Atlantic Monthly, and read an interesting bit on the "twelve tribes" (oh the imagery!) of America. It's an interesting read that makes a lot more sense than the simplistic "red/blue" paradigm that is oh-so-popular and acrimonious.
There's this and this.
"The basic purpose of government is the mutual defense of its citizens"
"Certainly not."
Hoo boy.
Hoo boy.
What's that supposed to mean? I think we all know that the purpose of government is a pretty fundamental divide among conservatives and liberals.
Tlaloc's got himself a point, Hunter. You'll have to broaden your definition of "defense" to an incredibly tenuous level just to justify the governmental functions you alone use daily.
James, I think the basic statement is being radically understood. The first and primary goal of government is to provide for the physical safety of its members. This is not a novel interpretation of political theory. It is RIDICULOUS, repeat RIDICULOUS, to argue otherwise.
Are there other functions? Yes. Legitimate functions? Yes. The simple and modest point was that physical safety is primary and precedes the others.
And by the way, that "Hoo boy!" is pretty devastating, isn't it?
Morrie Brickman made an absolute career of the phrase in his political cartoon "The Small Society."
To my recollection, he ended virtually every installment with that two word atomic bomb.
I kind of thought "Hoo boy!" was more of a preaching to the choir, playing to the crowd sort of response, devoid of either triumph or argument.
You're also using the "universalist" argument - I don't know the technical term - of ascribing universiality to your argument. You state that your point is "obvious" and "not worth challenging" (I know, not your words, I'm just trying to demonstrate).
From Plato to Rawls, the answer has been somewhat different than yours: The protection of rights and administration of justice. One might also argue that its purpose is the protection of the priviliges of a select group. Of course, these broad statements raise questions all their own. This is what I meant by your stretching "defense." Defense is a very limited concept in political economy.
"It altered my entire world view."
FINALLY!
By the way, your take on single leaders (read dictators) and military history is highly explanatory (cough, cough) of the outcome of WWII.
Aardvark,
Just out of curiosity, which ideologues were you addressing? I only ask because, from where I sit, Tlaloc and I aren't the only ones, so that makes it kind of hard to figure out who you were addressing.
I also thought I was being fairly reasonable, but, you know, it's not like I haven't been accused of ideological myopism before, with some validity.
There were over 4000 years of human history before Locke and Rousseau, and lotsa of humanity before that.
The West as we know it is a baby, an experiment. Its survival is by no means assured.
In fact, of late it seems to be an open question of whether it even has the will to reproduce itself.
Connie, I think you definitely misread Locke because physical safety is quite primary in his reasoning for why we emerge from the state of nature.
The difference between him and Hobbes is that Hobbes thinks life without government would be hell, which thus justifies an overaweing Leviathan King. Locke thinks it would merely be a little less safe, thus justifying a limited government.
On the redistribution issue, I'm not obsessed, but I do want to make sure we call a spade a spade and don't pretend that we simply have a right to the fruit of another person's labors. Taking something via act of government is still taking something via force. Whatever we do, you must remember there was a very large contingent that did not wish to go along, but they must pay regardless.
Yup.
Are you really going to deny that a single leader is more militarily effective than a democracy?
I believe they (Germany & Japan) had quite a head start on the Allies – and yet they still lost. You are correct that the indecisiveness of democracies is problematic, but once they (finally) set their mind on something, they tend to annihilate despots. Democracies produce far superior war making organizations – it’s really not even close – once they’re unleashed.
Tlaloc>> The head start I was referring to had to do with military intention. Hitler had mobilized his military and capitalized on the unpreparedness of the rest of the world (due to the shock of WWI). By the time that the Brits and the US woke up, the Axis powers had quite a head start.
As for the rest of your point about command structure, obviously pure democracies are not best suited to make command decisions during wars. So from that standpoint, you are correct and that's why all militaries have similar command structures.
The difference – and you can read a little Vic Hanson on this – is that citizens of western cultures (primarily with democratic forms of govt) are the most effective killers in the world for the same reasons that they are the most effective marketers, scientists, engineers, etc. In other words, the fruit of our culture (and it’s democratic institutions) is what makes us tough to beat – not so much the design of the command structure.
[I should note that none of this is a comment on the primary role of govt.]
"Yup."
"Is that in answer to my question "Are you really going to deny that a single leader is more militarily effective than a democracy?""
Yup. :)
An argument in favor of your position, Hunter.
Free men fight more ingeniously, and harder, because they fight for themselves, not for the state.
(By extension, I think, also an argument against collectivism, substituting "work" for "fight.")
So if as you admit democracies are not the best way to operate a military and if as hunter claims the primary purpose of government is military might then the obvious conclusion is that hunter is or should be anti-democratic as should anyone who agrees with his position.
I’m not arguing that defense is the sole purpose of govt – I’m merely stating that democratic govt’s tend to have militaries that are superior to despotic ones. A democratic govt gets the best of both worlds - a professional military with the direct chain of command (just like all those groovy despots) but with the added feature of having the assets (people, technology, motivation, worldview, capital) to make it extra-lethal.
Indeed we are very near to a point where we will be eclipsed in military power by... guess who? Those very democratic chinese.
China is not sure that it can pull off an invasion of Taiwan right now, let alone the US. But you have to ask yourself, why are the Chinese so far behind in the first place? They’ve been focused on their military for so long, you’d think they’d be better at it by now – what resource don’t they have going for them?
For pities sake look at North Korea. They are a tiny fly speck with nothing of any value and no economy but their military is daunting to the US.
If we invaded, their conventional forces would be toast – the only issue would be how insanely humane we wanted to be during their annihilation. Any anxiety on our part is due to all of the collateral issues involved with them and our natural desire to avoid conflict.
War powers are reserved to the executive for a reason. Militaries are heirarchies for a reason.
No one is arguing with you here. The military is a branch of the govt that fulfills (one of) it's primary obligation(s). That branch takes its cue from a democratically elected executive and congress - it does not need to be a democracy itself.
Holy crap! I went to bed when there was something like 41 comments yesterday...
I believe they (Germany & Japan) had quite a head start on the Allies – and yet they still lost. You are correct that the indecisiveness of democracies is problematic, but once they (finally) set their mind on something, they tend to annihilate despots. Democracies produce far superior war making organizations – it’s really not even close – once they’re unleashed.
That's not necessarily counter to Tlaloc's point. The decision-making apparatus of any military force is one-direction hierarchical. Military leaders are appointed, not elected. The military is not subject to civilian oversight or justice. It bears remarkable resemblance to the more effective command styles of certain totalitarian regimes.
Now, it should be said that your comments have a liberal bent, but it would seem that we all have prejudices.
Cute. I far prefer this.
The difference – and you can read a little Vic Hanson on this – is that citizens of western cultures (primarily with democratic forms of govt) are the most effective killers in the world for the same reasons that they are the most effective marketers, scientists, engineers, etc. In other words, the fruit of our culture (and it’s democratic institutions) is what makes us tough to beat – not so much the design of the command structure.
An interesting thought, worth discussion. I generally have an unfavorable opinion of Victor Davis Hanson's writings. I had way too much of him in one of my favorite classes (with the best title EVER): Political Science 121 - "War."
Free men fight more ingeniously, and harder, because they fight for themselves, not for the state.
(By extension, I think, also an argument against collectivism, substituting "work" for "fight.")
Sorry, Tom, but you're contradicted by history on this one. The individualist is anathema to an effective fighting force. Throughout history, the most effective war-fighters have been those who fought for something greater than themselves: homeland, family, community, religion, ideal, etc. Just a few examples: The Israelis. The Maccabees. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Hezbollah and Hamas. Both Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War. The individualist urge is something every military - including ours - has sought to diminish in its fighters. The highly individualist Gauls, fighting to preserve their individual freedom, were defeated by the communitarian Romans who fought to "bring the light" of civilized Rome to the barbarians. The highly individualistic Native Americans were defeated by the collectivist US. Your contention is emotionally appealing and completely inaccurate.
If the US was not an enormous country (fourth largest overall but when you consider actual usable land area it's either #1 or #2) with enormous natural resources and a history mericifully free of strife it would not now be a world leader in military power.
This is very true. Iceland's (the oldest parliamentarian country; since 980 CE) army doesn't exactly provoke fear, for all its fierce Viking heritage. Athens, a proto-deomocracy, was militarily ineffective without allies. And the world's oldest participatory democracy, the Iroquois nation, couldn't stand up to the avaricious Old Worlders.
Indeed we are very near to a point where we will be eclipsed in military power by... guess who? Those very democratic chinese.
Sorry, Tlaloc, and you were doing so well. China cannot compete with the US militarily. It lacks the navy, air force, and armored divisions to compete with the U.S. Its strategic and tactical nuclear arsenal doesn't start to compare. Please note that this is not a comment on its political, fiscal, or economic ability to compete. China could, with some success, compete with India and maybe Russia, but not with the US.
I used to subscribe to the "coming military conflict with China" theory too, but I'm thinking I was wrong. That was six years ago, anyways. In terms of arms, precision warfare, and sheer military might, the US is the unparalleled superpower. However, this has not made America safer. Just look at how poorly we've fared in unconventional, low-intensity warfare. The US is unsurpassed when it can meet the enemy in combat. But when it cannot find or engage the enemy? You cannot defeat an enemy who refuses to engage you, who disappears into the population at large. Not unless you want to descend into totalitarianism or genocide.
Connie, I think you definitely misread Locke because physical safety is quite primary in his reasoning for why we emerge from the state of nature.
The difference between him and Hobbes is that Hobbes thinks life without government would be hell, which thus justifies an overaweing Leviathan King. Locke thinks it would merely be a little less safe, thus justifying a limited government.
Hunter, that you are a fan of Locke and Hobbes comes as no surprise. That you've either completely misinterpreted or attempted to ignore everyone from Plato to Rawls is rather a surprise.
Fair enough. The results seem to be rather consistent; the result from both evaluations were rather similar.
Well, according to yours, I'm a socialist. According to mine, I make Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama look like fascist paleo-cons.
"Hunter, that you are a fan of Locke and Hobbes comes as no surprise. That you've either completely misinterpreted or attempted to ignore everyone from Plato to Rawls is rather a surprise."
Wrong on both counts. Not particularly a fan of the gents mentioned. Haven't misinterpreted or ignored.
Physical safety is the lowest common denominator in the equation, the most basic need and purpose of government. The one that drives people to give up the absolute freedom that isn't freedom at all because bigger, faster, meaner, stronger can take it away at any point.
Connie, on your point about redistribution, I'm not sure you're right. At the federal level, at least, the lower income groups pay absolutely no income tax and often receive a net surplus payment. Their big contribution is to the payroll programs from which they hope to receive later benefits. In other words, they aren't paying for highways and airports.
In other words, they aren't paying for highways and airports.
At the federal level, about three-quarters of the cost of constructing and maintaining highways is generated by gasoline taxes and tolls. So the poor do pay for highways, but only in proportion to how much they actually use them, which is not redistributionist either.
Tlaloc>> Ah but you have to for your argument to be consistent. You want to say that democracies have better militaries but when we look at those militaries they are all run as autocracies. In other words democracy only manages to be effective militarily to the degree in which it denies or negates itself.
I agree that militaries are structurally set up as autocracies, just like most of our instituitions and businesses that operate within a democracy are. The question then is, why do our institutions – if they are run in the same autocratic fashion as everyone else’s - dominate the world? Your answer seems to be that we have all of the material advantages. I don’t buy it. Free men choose - or at least have the sense that they choose – their destiny, and the motivation that flows from that mindset is what encourages them – from the lowliest clerk to the chairman of the board – to pursue excellence.
James>> The individualist is anathema to an effective fighting force. Throughout history, the most effective war-fighters have been those who fought for something greater than themselves: homeland, family, community, religion, ideal, etc.
James, you are right on here in emphasizing the power of a 'cause'. I think TVD and I would agree with the thought that having a purpose beyond ourselves is the most powerful motivation we can have. The main point we’re making is that free people have a far better chance of tapping into that power (or the next best thing, self-interest) because they have a part in deciding what is worth their commitment of time and energy as opposed to those who exist as part of ‘the system’ to fulfill someone else’s aims.
Everyone needs a cause, and the strength of that cause helps determine how productive a life we will live.
I like your point about disagreeability, aardvark. I've experienced some great times arguing major controversies with people dedicated to civility AND respect. I sink down sometimes, but I aspire to something better.
Tlaloc>> Wait, you don't believe we have the material advantages or you don't believe that explains the discrepency?
I don’t believe it explains the discrepancy. [Although, I will say that if you want to count the quantity of people (not to mention the quality) we have as a material advantage, then I would agree with the former. I’m with Peter Drucker and Mark Steyn on the significance of demographics.]
As James said before, it's a nice idea but it isn't accurate.
I believe I followed up on that – and agreed with James that having purpose in life (especially something beyond yourself) is where real productivity comes from. Personal freedom is the fertile soil that enables these purposes to develop. So even though you have free people in democracies working in autocratic institutions, their freedom to choose to ‘buy-in’ to that organization’s mission (and the hope that it will be mutually beneficial) allows them to be more productive than they otherwise would be.
Look I'm an anarchist which by your logic should make me a butt kicking uber ninja. But it doesn't.
Maybe you’re not, and maybe our system holds you back some – but relative to the rest of the world, you have a much better chance of becoming one here. As a whole, we lead the world in ninja production (and productivity in general) because of our culture – of which personal freedom is a major, but not the only, component.
A curiosity related to aardvark's civility comments:
I so desperately wanted to keep debating - if I may use that word. But I found that in order to continue, I would have to start arguing against the concept of free will, against self-determination and the efficacy of the individual, all of which are things are things I fervently believe in. A tip of the hat to you, Mr. Huisman: Well debated, and you've swayed me in some important respects.
Well I appreciate that James - I know that I don't usually convey similar sentiments when I should.
You bring quite a bit to the table here, and though I love the hosts - the place wouldn't be the same without you.
Yeah, I was going to say, "Germany under totalitarian rule." But really, what's the point anymore?
Tlaloc>> Come on Husiamn, you can't be serious. You really want me to believe that the US has a better ability to turn out a master warrior than say the Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan? That's ludicrous.
As far as your examples of warrior cultures go, I’m reminded of the scene from Indiana Jones where Harrison Ford is being challenged by an intimidating Arab warrior wielding a scimitar(?) – Ford watches in amazement, then pulls out a gun and shoots him. It’s not that we have a military or warrior culture – we don’t need one – we have a culture that develops concepts like OODA loops, Six Sigma, etc. Here’s the final paragraph from an article by Hanson prior to the OIF invasion:
“But ultimately we will fight as we live. Thus our military will simply be an expression of our larger values of freedom, consensual government, secular rationalism, capitalism, religious tolerance, individualism, group discipline, civilian audit, self-critique and egalitarianism. And so we will win decisively a war that we did not seek — allies or not.”
Our military is very powerful, not because our people are one whit better intrinsically, but because we can afford the best training and equipment. That's it.
I have made no comment about the intrinsic abilities of our people. With respect to being able to afford training and equipment, I would think that Saudi Arabia should have been able to defend itself from Saddam rather than depend on the US. They have plenty of resources, don’t they? Even Saddam should have had enough money to train his folks better than they were. What gives?
In other words, there is more than just money at work here.
Tlaloc>> But (assuming it wasn't a hollywood movie) if you give the scimitar guy a gun and Jones a sword who wins?
I don't know, does the scimitar guy know how to maintain and fire the gun? What if you gave the Iraqi's our tanks and planes and five years to prepare, and we got theirs - who do you think would win? Hanson relates the story of the battle of Rorke's Drift, where 100 Brits hold off 5,000 Zulus - each side with similar weaponry. The Zulus were fierce warriors - how did this happen?
Lets put it this way:
say we have a little gladiator fun. You get to take the 100 hardest mofos from any US military outfit. I get to take the 100 hardest mofos from some non-democratic country. Say China. Better yet afghanistan. Everybody gets a knife. That's it.
Look, the more 'extras' you take away from our side, the closer the battle becomes. But since a battle of 100 mofos would involve unit coordination, I'll take my chances.
However, as soon as you say that each side gets knives and anything else (radios, maps, money, tanks, guns, whatever) our edge grows dramatically.
Maybe we should just arm wrestle?
And in the face of horrible military abuse scandals hopefully it is clear that Hanson as usual doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
Abu Grahib is the exception that proves the rule - Gitmo is a complete joke. Let's imagine anyone else in the world pulling off this 'occupation' - maybe the Russians or your beloved Chinese - I wonder how we would compare?
The Russians a great example. Afghanistan nearly broke them. We subdued it in a bout 0.5 seconds.
Hunter>> That certainly goes to the point about our current military superiority. Now add in the (relatively) humane way in which we executed these missions - who on earth, even if you gave them the same resources, would do them better?
Tlaloc>> By the way...
US GDP- 12.37 trillion
Saudi GDP- .3 trillion
Iraq GDP- .1 trillion
The Saudi's have plenty of resources to defend themselves relative to Iraq. Either they were too cheap to do it themselves (and spare the outrage of having the Great Satan on their soil) or they determined we might be better at it.
Look, this whole train of thought got started by your insistence that it was illogical to choose a democracy if defense was the primary responsibility of government. Operating a military and setting its objectives do not have to share decision-making structures. As far as I’m concerned, a democratic form of government is a completely logical way to protect ourselves given that ‘we the people’ want to have a say in shaping the military’s agenda. The same thinking would apply to anything else we want government to do – we don’t just turn the keys over to an individual and say, here, design and build all the highways and let us know how it turns out. We would rather use an inefficient bickering process to set our common purposes than have a Leviathan - not just because an autocrat can’t be trusted, but because its lack of participation disconnects us from the purpose and turns us into dependents.
I'm sure we'll never agree on this subject, and I'm sure that I have to be carefull not to go overboard with this western exceptionalism stuff - but there's no way that I'm buying into the notion that autocratic govt's are superior in any significant way to ours.
Post a Comment